PDA

View Full Version : Are Fox News viewers LESS informed?



Losthwy
11-07-2008, 11:08 AM
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. This is from the folllowing study.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...d=&id=&pnt=102 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102)

Hew
11-07-2008, 11:51 AM
A more salient question is, "Are people who unquestioningly believe every leftwing special interest group's study pawns or dupes?"



WPO is made possible by the generous support of:
Rockefeller Foundation (http://www.rockfound.org/)
Rockefeller Brothers Fund (http://www.rbf.org/)
Tides Foundation (http://www.tides.org/)
Ford Foundation (http://www.fordfound.org/)
German Marshall Fund of the United States (http://www.gmfus.org/)
Compton Foundation (http://www.comptonfoundation.org/)
Carnegie Corporation (http://www.carnegie.org/)
Benton Foundation (http://www.benton.org/)
Ben and Jerry's Foundation (http://www.benjerry.com/foundation/index.html)
University of Maryland Foundation (http://www.foundation.umd.edu/)
Circle Foundation
JEHT Foundation (http://www.jehtfoundation.org/)
Stanley Foundation (http://www.stanleyfoundation.org/)
Ploughshares Fund (http://www.ploughshares.org/)
Calvert Foundation
Secure World Foundation (http://www.swfound.org/)
Oak Foundation (http://www.oakfnd.org/)
United States Institute of Peace (http://www.usip.org/)


Gee, all that's missing from that dubious list of supporters is the Black Panthers and Moveon.org :rolleyes:

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 12:00 PM
Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely. This is from the folllowing study.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...d=&id=&pnt=102 (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102)

Please stop digging up biased sources that support your biased opinions. People use statistics incorrectly to "prove" a point. The correct use of statistics is to show the probability that a hypothesis is incorrect. To understand this distinction, consider this: No matter how many examples you find that agree with a hypothesis, it only takes one example to to disprove that hypothesis. If you paid attention to the last election, the statistics were used incorrectly to show that Obama would win by a double digit lead, yet, his lead was only 6%, less than half of what the pundits predicted.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli

Henry V
11-07-2008, 12:42 PM
This is old news. Is anyone surprised that those on the right don't believe a University of Maryland study? It is just like any other scientific study, isn't it?. It was obviously done by liberal University researchers and thus the results are tainted. Just like global warming studies and the like.;)

Those on the right, please enlighten me how these particular results of this study were "biased".(An excerpt from a newspaper article on the study)


For the past year, the Program on International Policy Attitudes, or PIPA, a consortium organized through the University of Maryland, has been using a California-based research group called Knowledge Networks (and existing Roper polling data) to test what Americans know and how they came to know it.

Since June, PIPA has been refining data that showed disturbing misperceptions related to the following three questions:

- "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"

- "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"

- "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?"

The survey was released late last week, and the news of it was this: Those who cited Fox News as their primary news source were far more likely to harbor fundamental misperceptions about one or more of these three questions than those who cited National Public Radio or PBS as their primary sources for news.

But for all the anecdotal information, opinions and accusations, here was a comprehensive survey with a thoroughly professional, scientific methodology. We don't get enough of that.

Eighty percent of the 3,334 respondents said their primary news source was television or radio networks. Of that figure, 18 percent cited Fox News as their primary news source. A mere 3 percent cited NPR or PBS. (Thirty percent cited two or more sources; CNN 16 percent, NBC 14 percent, ABC 11 percent, CBS 9 percent.)

Twenty percent cited newspapers and magazines as their primary news source.

On the question of a link between Saddam and al-Qaida, a frankly startling 67 percent of the Fox News primary-source crowd believed this to be true. It's a claim that was one of the centerpieces of the Bush administration war policy but has never been proved, and, as PIPA asserts, is now largely dismissed by the intelligence community (and lately the White House itself).

It is probably no great solace to NPR and PBS that 16 percent of listeners glued to them also believe the Saddam-Osama link. But last time I checked, 67 percent was more than four times greater than 16 percent.

On the question of whether we have found weapons of mass destruction, a matter of enormous controversy heavily reported in every major source, 33 percent of Fox News watchers somehow still believe that we have. (The president at one point said we did.) Only 17 percent of those consuming mostly print media thought so, and only 11 percent of the NPR-PBS crowd was operating under the same rather astonishing misperception.

On the matter of world opinion, 35 percent of Fox News-viewing respondents believe world opinion supported the U.S. war with Iraq, while only 5 percent of the NPR-PBS crowd believed this in the face of almost daily international criticism and/or consternation.

The study also made an effort to gauge the quantity of time spent consuming news from a specific source and the relation between additional exposure and misperceptions of these three issues.

The conclusion: "While it would seem that misperceptions are derived from a failure to pay attention to the news, overall, those who pay greater attention to the news are no less likely to have misperceptions. Among those who primarily watch Fox, those who pay more attention are more likely to have misperceptions. Only those who primarily get their news from print media, and to some extent those who primarily watch CNN, have fewer misperceptions as they pay more attention."

Was it the large sample? The straightforward questions? What exactly was biased??? You say the study was biased. Please explain how?

JS
11-07-2008, 12:55 PM
Please stop digging up biased sources that support your biased opinions. People use statistics incorrectly to "prove" a point. The correct use of statistics is to show the probability that a hypothesis is incorrect. To understand this distinction, consider this: No matter how many examples you find that agree with a hypothesis, it only takes one example to to disprove that hypothesis. If you paid attention to the last election, the statistics were used incorrectly to show that Obama would win by a double digit lead, yet, his lead was only 6%, less than half of what the pundits predicted.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
Benjamin Disraeli


Someone's Phd'itis is showing ;-)


.......by professors that have a PhD'itis. This is a disease that people with graduate degrees get where they believe that because they are experts in one small area, they must be experts in everything (I spent my career doing cancer research at a university and managed to avoid catching PhD'itis).

Bob Gutermuth
11-07-2008, 01:02 PM
I watch Fox News. They provide a good counterbalance to the propaganda spread by the driveby media, like ABC and the Baltimore sun. NPR and PMSNBC would make Joseph Goebbels proud with the stuff they spread.

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 01:09 PM
Was it the large sample? The straightforward questions? What exactly was biased??? You say the study was biased. Please explain how?

The way that a question is presented clearly can influence the results. Did they find weapons of mass destruction? The answer is yes, several warheads that contained nerve gas. So, what is the answer? Did NPR report that several warheads were found? Did FOX report that several warheads were found? In fact, did the study examine what was and was not reported? This is just another BS study put together by people trying to prove a point. For this study to have any validity, the hypothesis should have been: people that observe FOX News have the same opinion as people that observe other news sources such as NPR. Then statistics could be used to disprove the hypothesis.

Again, another study that uses statistics incorrectly to "prove" a point. As a cancer researcher, if I used statistics the way people trying to prove a point use statistics, I would be rich and many people would be dead.

If you have discrete examples, please let us know. If you just have another biased study that uses statistics, please keep it to yourself.

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 01:14 PM
Someone's Phd'itis is showing ;-)

As a researcher, I am absolutely dependent on statistics. Maybe you would like to discuss statistical methods.

PS I am an expert in statistics. On the other hand, I am just an armchair politician (in other words, my political opinions may not be logical).

BonMallari
11-07-2008, 01:25 PM
I watch Fox news too for the following reasons

Megyn Kelly

Jane Skinner

Martha McCallum

and best of all Courtney Friel



remember its really entertainment.....if I want hard news i will go to realclearpolitics.com

Bob Gutermuth
11-07-2008, 01:29 PM
I watch O'Rielly almost nightly. The way things are going, I will be listening to Rush and Sean on a daily basis, at least until that stinkin fairness doctirne censors them.

jefflab5
11-07-2008, 01:32 PM
I find this laughable. There was a yet another poll after the election about "fair" coverage of the election. Guess what the Communist news network (CNN) was first and Fox News came in second behind all the other mainstream media outlets. I'll stick with Fox and their brand of Kool- Aid, feel free to go drink the other networks Kool- Aid, if you wish it is a free country after all.

YardleyLabs
11-07-2008, 01:32 PM
I believe that the most insidious consequence of the growth of the Luddite Right has been its belief that all science is political.

The growth of this country into a world superpower during the 20th century was primarily the result of our pragmatic belief in scientific method, engineering prowess, and a commitment to make things work. Now we define our conclusions first, attack anyone who disagrees, and listen only to evidence that supports our particular view. We use the careful language of scientific method -- which abhors statements of certainty because they blind us to contrary evidence -- as an argument to discredit science altogether. "How can you believe the theory of evolution?" our Luddites say, "My grandmother doesn't look like an ape and I didn't see anything evolve today. It's all a lie."

One of my professors in graduate school was fond of saying that personal experience is not statistically significant. It's an important thing to remember. It doesn't say that one should surrender common sense and critical judgment, but one must be willing to submit hypotheses (another word for beliefs) to analysis. Scientific method says that we must be willing to be most critical of those things we believe in most strongly because those are the centerpieces of our intellectual blindness.

If Rush Limbaugh had been in charge of the department of science, the world would still be flat with the sun circling around it. FOX News would be reporting the allegations of Newton and Galileo derisively, stating that the next crazy person would probably try to sell you a trip on a flying machine. MSNBC in turn would be championing Newton for having cured gravity.

At some point, one either has to be prepared to subject one's beliefs to scientific testing or climb into the grave pulling our whole country in behind you. It seems to me, once again, that the Luddite Right has decided that it is better to be dead than read (pun fully intended).

Before one reacts too quickly, I have and will say the same thing to knee jerk liberals. When I first started work as a government policy analyst in 1973, I found that I almost had to prove a program was evil before it would be stopped. There was a presumption made that if the objectives were charitable and good the program must be good as well. Millions were wasted. With the types of arguments we routinely have on this board and in our most recent election, my fear is that if we all saw a drowning man, one group would set out to build a giant ship while the other argued that the man got himself into trouble and should get his own self out. The man would die, and everyone would breath a sigh relief because our opinions would be left safe and sound.

JS
11-07-2008, 01:34 PM
As a researcher, I am absolutely dependent on statistics. Maybe you would like to discuss statistical methods.

PS I am an expert in statistics. On the other hand, I am just an armchair politician (in other words, my political opinions may not be logical).

Well, I was a Psych major. Aced everything BUT Stat. (can you say BOOOORRRRRING :D. )
So we won't be discussing statistical methods but given an adequate ration of liquid refreshment, we might have an interesting dialogue on WHY people view things as they do.

JS

Losthwy
11-07-2008, 01:35 PM
More interesting reads.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1072

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

Hew
11-07-2008, 01:40 PM
This is old news. Is anyone surprised that those on the right don't believe a University of Maryland study?

For starters, it's not a University of Maryland study. It's a study by World Public Opinion.Org. They're affiliated with the Univ. of Maryland's PIPA program. They're funded by the previous who's who list of liberal organizations I provided.


Those on the right, please enlighten me how these particular results of this study were "biased".(An excerpt from a newspaper article on the study)
No, it wasn't a newspaper article. It was an editorial column. You do know the difference don't you? I'm sure you do. Perhaps that's why you took out the first and last paragraphs of the column which were heavy with overt editorializing. I'm sure you'd get a good chuckle out of me using a Rush Limbaugh editorial as evidence supporting one of my opinions. Just as I got a good laugh at you trying to fob off an editorial as legit news that supported the veracity of a study prepared by a very liberal public opinion organization.

Henry V
11-07-2008, 01:44 PM
Paul, Thanks for the thoughtful response.

I agree that the wording of questions can bias results. Are the three questions in their survey biased from your point of view?

You seem to be questioning whether there were WMDs found or not. Technically you are correct that some items were found but not the "stockpiles".

While I totally agree that a more direct investigation could be done to answer the research question about Fox news, the purpose/objective of this study was not to prove or disprove anything about Fox news specifically. Here are the questions the researchers were trying to answer

• How widespread are these misperceptions? Are they clustered in a constant minority or does a majority have at least one key misperception?
• How have these misperceptions related to support for the decision to go to war and subsequently?
• Do these misperceptions vary according to whether they get their news from print media or a particular television network?
• Is the problem that Americans simply do not pay enough attention to the news? If they pay more attention, does this reduce the likelihood of misperceptions? Does this vary according to their news source?
• Is the problem one of bias—of one seeking out information to confirm political predilections? Do levels of misperception vary according to party identification or feelings about President Bush?

To answer these and other questions we developed a more systematic set of questions that were included in a series of three polls, conducted over June through September, with a total of 3,334 respondents. This was combined with the findings from four other polls conducted January through May for a total data set of 8634 respondents.
The polls were fielded by Knowledge Networks using its nationwide panel, which is randomly selected from the entire adult population and subsequently provided internet access. For more information about this methodology, go to www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp.
Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Ford Foundation.
Go ahead and discount the results of this study as "biased" because they were observational but the results are statistically defensible. 67% of survey respondents that cited Fox news as their primary source believed there was a connection between Saddam and Osama. 16% of survey respondents that listed NPR and PBS believed there was a Saddam-Osama connection.
How specifically are these two results biased by the way this survey was designed and conducted and isn't there a significant difference in these results from a statistical viewpoint?

Is this a discrete enough example?

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 01:53 PM
I believe that the most insidious consequence of the growth of the Luddite Right has been its belief that all science is political.

I am not sure were the Luddites fit into this.


"How can you believe the theory of evolution?" our Luddites say, "My grandmother doesn't look like an ape and I didn't see anything evolve today. It's all a lie."

This argument would have been more powerful if you used another faction such as 'an acquaintance.'

Steve
11-07-2008, 01:54 PM
Why don't people on the right believe studies on global warming.

4 main reasons I have

Every solution involves more government control

No one has ever been to explain the natural variation in Climate that has resulted in numerous ice ages over the years

The religious fervor that environmentalists have

The attempt to squash debate leads me to believe the data will not hold up under scrutiny.

In summary, I do not trust the left.

Bob Gutermuth
11-07-2008, 02:10 PM
I think a lot of it is jealousy. Fox news consistently beats PMSNBC and the other drive by cable news outlets handily.

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 02:12 PM
Go ahead and discount the results of this study as "biased" because they were observational but the results are statistically defensible. 67% of survey respondents that cited Fox news as their primary source believed there was a connection between Saddam and Osama. 16% of survey respondents that listed NPR and PBS believed there was a Saddam-Osama connection.
How specifically are these two results biased by the way this survey was designed and conducted and isn't there a significant difference in these results from a statistical viewpoint?

Is this a discrete enough example?

The problem that I see with this is that FOX News has done very little reporting on a "Saddam-Osama" connection while NPR and PBS have spent a considerable of time reporting that there was no "Saddam-Osama" connection (most likely in an attempt to discredit President Bush). If NPR and PBS spent the same amount of time discussing this subject as FOX News, would the results be different? Furthermore, does a person's lack of knowledge about one subject mean that person lacks knowledge about other subjects?

Henry V
11-07-2008, 02:21 PM
For starters, it's not a University of Maryland study. It's a study by World Public Opinion.Org. They're affiliated with the Univ. of Maryland's PIPA program. They're funded by the previous who's who list of liberal organizations I provided.

The PI is with UofM. Can you point to any specific biases in the study?


No, it wasn't a newspaper article. It was an editorial column. You do know the difference don't you? I'm sure you do. Perhaps that's why you took out the first and last paragraphs of the column which were heavy with overt editorializing. I'm sure you'd get a good chuckle out of me using a Rush Limbaugh editorial as evidence supporting one of my opinions. Just as I got a good laugh at you trying to fob off an editorial as legit news that supported the veracity of a study prepared by a very liberal public opinion organization.
You are correct. It was a columnist. I did a quick qoogle search and this was a specific article that listed specific results from the study. I really did not want to waste time looking through the study if there was a good summary of some of the results. Again, rather than point the finger at the messenger or the funder to divert attention from the results, do you have any specifics on why the study is biased?

Henry V
11-07-2008, 02:38 PM
The problem that I see with this is that FOX News has done very little reporting on a "Saddam-Osama" connection while NPR and PBS have spent a considerable of time reporting that there was no "Saddam-Osama" connection (most likely in an attempt to discredit President Bush). If NPR and PBS spent the same amount of time discussing this subject as FOX News, would the results be different. Furthermore, does a person's lack of knowledge about one subject mean that person lacks knowledge about other subjects?
From this, I conclude that the problem you see in this specific example is not that the study is biased but that the conclusions reached based on the associations in the data are wrong or do not tell the whole story. I can agree that this is possible but looking at their data and results I could conclude as they did that in general, on those topics surveyed, the folks that listed Fox news as their primary news source were more ill, under, or misinformed regarding the truth than those whose primary news source was not fox news. The specific reasons why would need more analysis and study. From what I recall some of this analysis was done in the study.

Regarding your last question, this survey can't answer this question. In general, I believe that there is a direct but probably only modest relationship between the depth and breadth of news knowledge among individuals the population. That being said, there is also a difference between a lack of knowledge and being misinformed either generally or on specific topics.

brian breuer
11-07-2008, 02:40 PM
Why don't people on the right believe studies on global warming.

4 main reasons I have

1.Every solution involves more government control

2.No one has ever been to explain the natural variation in Climate that has resulted in numerous ice ages over the years

3.The religious fervor that environmentalists have

4.The attempt to squash debate leads me to believe the data will not hold up under scrutiny.

In summary, I do not trust the left.

(numbers added by me for reference)

#1 - This isn't a reason to doubt a theory. Either the data holds up or it doesn't. The solution shouldn't enter into it. Environmental regulation has to be done by the government. There are certain items that simply can't be done by the private sector. I deal extensively with the safe drinking water act and the clean water act. Look at the pollution of the 70's and 80's (and before). Our nation's streams, rivers and wetlands are in much better shape today than before because of the Government policies.

#2 - This is the key to the debate.
#3 - Religious ferver. They believe they are fighting for their children's future and way of life. The stakes are extremely high if we make the wrong choice. Once again, the data is there or it isn't.
#4 - I haven't seen attempts to squash debate.

I do not trust industry / the market to safe guard our environment. In general it isn't profitable and that is their purpose.

Pete
11-07-2008, 02:49 PM
AAHHH that study was funded by the rockefeller foundation

So would you expect anything other than that conclusion. If not there's more cool aid in the fridge.

You socialist gentleman give me the giggles.

Hew
11-07-2008, 02:50 PM
Again, rather than point the finger at the messenger or the funder to divert attention from the results, do you have any specifics on why the study is biased?
While my background in statistics is nowhere near others' here, I have a sociology degree, and a goodly amount of that curriculum revolved around designing and/or interpreting questionaires, polls, public opinion surveys, etc. I am fairly familiar with a lot of the biases, intentional or unintentional, that are built into surveys. I have a particularly jaundiced eye towards surveys funded/conducted by idealogues from either side of the political spectrum. That said, I don't need to know the exact questions, the order they were asked, how they were asked, the statistical model that was used to analyze the results, etc. to know with near certitude that the WPO/Pipa surveys are probably bullsh!t. Just as I would tell you that a survey paid for by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and conducted by some conservative house organ survey firm is probably bullsh!t, too. Capice?

Henry V
11-07-2008, 03:00 PM
While my background in statistics is nowhere near others' here, I have a sociology degree, and a goodly amount of that curriculum revolved around designing and/or interpreting questionaires, polls, public opinion surveys, etc. I am fairly familiar with a lot of the biases, intentional or unintentional, that are built into surveys. I have a particularly jaundiced eye towards surveys funded/conducted by idealogues from either side of the political spectrum. That said, I don't need to know the exact questions, the order they were asked, how they were asked, the statistical model that was used to analyze the results, etc. to know with near certitude that the WPO/Pipa surveys are probably bullsh!t. Just as I would tell you that a survey paid for by Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and conducted by some conservative house organ survey firm is probably bullsh!t, too. Capice?

No. You said the survey was biased. You blame the messenger and the funders but have never provided anything specific about why it is biased. The link is there with the full publication and survey. I posted the three questions and the results of the answers. Where is the specific bias that you claim makes this study meaningless or, for that matter, that you know that the studies from this group of researchers are "probably bullsh!t"?

Paul Johnson
11-07-2008, 03:09 PM
From this, I conclude that the problem you see in this specific example is not that the study is biased but that the conclusions reached based on the associations in the data are wrong or do not tell the whole story.

The reason the study is biased is because they used statistics in an attempt to validate a generalization rather then stating that one group of people knew less about a particular subject then another group.


Regarding your last question, this survey can't answer this question. In general, I believe that there is a direct but probably only modest relationship between the depth and breadth of news knowledge among individuals the population. That being said, there is also a difference between a lack of knowledge and being misinformed either generally or on specific topics.

The questions proposed by the study were worded such that it was impossible to make a distinction between lack of knowledge and being misinformed.

The problem with many of the studies is that they set out to prove a point rather than find an answer. When I submit a study for publication in a scientific journal, it is sent out by the editors for peer review. Only after multiple experts in my field of study (my peers) determine that it does not have any flaws will the editors agree to publish it. On the other hand, the news media and the internet do not have a peer review process.

Hew
11-07-2008, 03:21 PM
LOL. Obtuse much? You provide me with the following info and I'll get right on your request:

- Survey sample size
- Survey demographics (including age, sex, political affiliation, race, etc.)
- Exact questions
- How were responses formatted (yes/no, multiple choice, open ended)
- How questioned (phone, in person, email, etc.)
- Order that questions were asked
- Time of day questioned were asked
- Day of week they were asked
- Dates of sampling
- Sample timeframe (how many days to conduct sample)
- Dates of sampling (taken over 3 days, over one month)
- Statistical model of analysis
- Margin of error

All of those items go into conducting a survey, and ANY of those items can skew it (intentionally or not). While you're working on the list I've requested I'll hang on to my belief that a liberal polling organization funded by very liberal special interests produced a study that was skewed (intentionally or not) to come up with results consistent with the liberal notions that were in their liberal skulls.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

subroc
11-08-2008, 05:56 AM
Well, the questions are framed with what the left believes. Anything that deviates from those suppositions, by their way of thinking, is un-informed or miss-informed.

From Henry V


- "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?"Other than the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was invited to the country and after the fall of the Iraqi government he terrorized the place??? There are dozens of reasons beyond that, but that is a great place to start.


- "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?"The yellowcake that was removed is weapons of mass destruction regardless of how the left tries to dismiss it.


- "Thinking about how all the people in the world feel about the U.S. having gone to war with Iraq, do you think the majority of people favor the U.S. having gone to war?"How people around the world feel about the United States is irrelevant to me.

It appears those that conducted the poll illustrated THEIR bias to the rest of us.

Losthwy
11-08-2008, 07:53 AM
Other than the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was invited to the country and after the fall of the Iraqi government he terrorized the place??? There are dozens of reasons beyond that, but that is a great place to start.

The yellowcake that was removed is weapons of mass destruction regardless of how the left tries to dismiss it.

How people around the world feel about the United States is irrelevant to me.

It appears those that conducted the poll illustrated THEIR bias to the rest of us.
Are you a Fox News veiwer?

subroc
11-08-2008, 08:32 AM
Are you a Fox News veiwer?


Yup.

I get my news from Fox News, NPR, links from the Drudge Report to stories of interest, links from Real Clear Politics dot com, a couple blogs, and standard radio feeds during the day. Many of these links are to MSM websites. I routinely listen to talk radio when I can although recently I have been listening to sports radio (WEEI) more.

Occasionally, I will give the MSM (NBC (MSNBC), CBS, ABC, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post a chance and am always disappointed with their socialist or left wing slant.

Does your newsgathering differ appreciably from mine?

Joe S.
11-08-2008, 09:10 AM
Other than the fact that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was invited to the country and after the fall of the Iraqi government he terrorized the place??? There are dozens of reasons beyond that, but that is a great place to start.

Wow...if only Secretary Rumsfeld agreed with you. Found this after a 15 second search. I'm sure there are dozens more:

In June 2004, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld) conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi "may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. "Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me." Rumsfeld added that, "someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda."


The yellowcake that was removed is weapons of mass destruction regardless of how the left tries to dismiss it.

Yellowcake is and of itself not a WMD. It is partially refined uranium ore. It represents a singular step in the very long, complex and expensive process of converting urainium ore into the HEU needed for weapons. No knowledgeable agency or individual will support the claim that yellowcake "is weapons of mass destruction."


How people around the world feel about the United States is irrelevant to me.

Clearly.

Facts Are What They Are Regards,

Joe S.

Losthwy
11-08-2008, 09:27 AM
Yup.
Does your newsgathering differ appreciably from mine?
Many different sources print, radio, Internet, and TV in that order. I will listen to conservative views, esp. the likes of Joe Scarbough and David Gergen. I even listen to Rush the other day just to hear what he was talking about, though in no way, shape, form or fashion do I consider him a source of information, at best he is an entertainer. Savage, Hannity, and Rush, etc. are entertainers who spout extreme right-wing rhetoric to entertain their listeners. Even Bill O'Reilly said what he does is an act... I turned Rush off after I heard him say, "the Obama recession".

Paul Johnson
11-08-2008, 05:36 PM
Are you a Fox News veiwer?

Clearly, Losthwy does not read newspapers. If he did, he would note that his statements do not agree with widely read newspapers such as The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. He gets all his information from blogs on the internet where anybody can say anything they want without any proof.

Steve
11-08-2008, 10:47 PM
(numbers added by me for reference)

#1 - This isn't a reason to doubt a theory. Either the data holds up or it doesn't. The solution shouldn't enter into it. Environmental regulation has to be done by the government. There are certain items that simply can't be done by the private sector. I deal extensively with the safe drinking water act and the clean water act. Look at the pollution of the 70's and 80's (and before). Our nation's streams, rivers and wetlands are in much better shape today than before because of the Government policies.

#2 - This is the key to the debate.
#3 - Religious ferver. They believe they are fighting for their children's future and way of life. The stakes are extremely high if we make the wrong choice. Once again, the data is there or it isn't.
#4 - I haven't seen attempts to squash debate.

I do not trust industry / the market to safe guard our environment. In general it isn't profitable and that is their purpose.

1. There is no simple verification to this issue. If I doubt the motives of the proponents of global warming, then I will doubt their computer models and analysis of data.

Pollution is not discrete. In other words "what is clean" is not black and white. It is a matter of scientific analysis and should be decided by rational analysis instead of emotional response.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser

3. Viewing nature as "mother earth" clouds ones judgement. I would not trust an absolute creationist to carbon date a dinosaur and I do not trust an irrational environmentalist to objectively analyze any data.

4. Earlier this year it was announced that the debate was over and that global warming was real. There never was a debate. Just another tactic to avoid debate

I do not trust government to do what is in the best interest in the country. That has been proven over the years. :-(

cotts135
11-09-2008, 06:25 AM
I watch Fox News. They provide a good counterbalance to the propaganda spread by the driveby media, like ABC and the Baltimore sun. NPR and PMSNBC would make Joseph Goebbels proud with the stuff they spread.
When you say counterbalance you infer that you watch those other stations that you quote. I was wondering if you did,or is Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and others on the right just saying that MSNBC, NPR, and ABC is part of the driveby media and is spreading propaganda.

subroc
11-09-2008, 07:40 AM
When you say counterbalance you infer that you watch those other stations that you quote. I was wondering if you did,or is Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and others on the right just saying that MSNBC, NPR, and ABC is part of the driveby media and is spreading propaganda.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/07/AR2008110702895.html)

from their own words…

The interesting thing about the WaPo article is if they, a liberal newspaper, finds themselves bias, what would an independent review find?

brian breuer
11-09-2008, 08:13 AM
1. There is no simple verification to this issue. If I doubt the motives of the proponents of global warming, then I will doubt their computer models and analysis of data.

Pollution is not discrete. In other words "what is clean" is not black and white. It is a matter of scientific analysis and should be decided by rational analysis instead of emotional response.

2. Burden of proof is on the accuser

3. Viewing nature as "mother earth" clouds ones judgement. I would not trust an absolute creationist to carbon date a dinosaur and I do not trust an irrational environmentalist to objectively analyze any data.

4. Earlier this year it was announced that the debate was over and that global warming was real. There never was a debate. Just another tactic to avoid debate

I do not trust government to do what is in the best interest in the country. That has been proven over the years. :-(

You kind of changed on number one. Before it was the concern over the solution. That's fine. I agree pollution is not discrete nor will ever be able to eliminate it. However, shouldn't we be taking steps to be as clean as we can. I understand it is a balancing act between clean and cost. But, I don't think anyone can disagree with we are sticking a straw into a finite source of oil. It will eventually run out. Other clean and renewable sources should be developed while we still have flexibility and the financial means to do so.

#2. What would you need to accept global warming as likely enough to introduce legislation to counteract it? I don't think it can ever be proved beyond a doubt due to the nature of the problem. What would be enough in your mind?

#3 I agree with being skeptical but not close minded. Depends on the degree I guess.

#4. I hadn't heard that before. Although I have two young kids and my news watching isn't what it used to be.

If you don't trust the government who would you like to see handle environmental issues? How about federal land management? Should the government own land?

There are just certain functions that I feel the government is the best and only option. The environment being one of them.

I'm just trying to have some wild places left for my kids. I don't want to piss them off too bad with the mess we left. They'll be picking my nursing home.

Brian

Steve
11-09-2008, 09:48 PM
You kind of changed on number one. Before it was the concern over the solution.

Not really. I believe many of the proponents of global warming are doing so to increase government control of our economy. I simply don't trust what they say.


#2. What would you need to accept global warming as likely enough to introduce legislation to counteract it? I don't think it can ever be proved beyond a doubt due to the nature of the problem. What would be enough in your mind?

Hard to say, but it would have to involve the ability to explain the natural variation in the climate.


If you don't trust the government who would you like to see handle environmental issues? How about federal land management? Should the government own land?

There is not an easy solution. I think environmental issues should be handled at the state level and the feds should not own property outside of military bases, courts, and the like. The only purpose I see the feds having is handling disputes between the states. A one size fits all solution doesn't work.

I can give you a concrete example of the feds trying to fix something and causing bigger problems. A company I used to work for in St. Louis was forced to install a system to capture all emissions from process vessels and burn them. It turned out that the oxidizer produced more pollution in the form of nitrogen oxides than it was destroying from the vessels. At least 25 million was spent on the project not to mention hundreds of thousands in yearly gas costs. We all see it in the costs of the product.

Henry V
11-10-2008, 10:54 AM
LOL. Obtuse much? You provide me with the following info and I'll get right on your request:

- Survey sample size
- Survey demographics (including age, sex, political affiliation, race, etc.)
- Exact questions
- How were responses formatted (yes/no, multiple choice, open ended)
- How questioned (phone, in person, email, etc.)
- Order that questions were asked
- Time of day questioned were asked
- Day of week they were asked
- Dates of sampling
- Sample timeframe (how many days to conduct sample)
- Dates of sampling (taken over 3 days, over one month)
- Statistical model of analysis
- Margin of error

All of those items go into conducting a survey, and ANY of those items can skew it (intentionally or not). While you're working on the list I've requested I'll hang on to my belief that a liberal polling organization funded by very liberal special interests produced a study that was skewed (intentionally or not) to come up with results consistent with the liberal notions that were in their liberal skulls.

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure.

Let's see. I am obtuse because, in direct response to you, I post:
You said the survey was biased. You blame the messenger and the funders but have never provided anything specific about why it is biased. The link is there with the full publication and survey. I posted the three questions and the results of the answers. Where is the specific bias that you claim makes this study meaningless or, for that matter, that you know that the studies from this group of researchers are "probably bullsh!t"? I did not realize that asking a simple straightforward question and following up directly when no direct answer is given is "obtuse". Thanks for enlightening me. Talk about LOL.

Guess what Hew? All your questions above are answered at the website and study links that started this thread (not sure how some of those items indicate bias though- you know, help me understand how the margin of error indicates bias). To help you out earlier, I even posted several of the specific questions and asked what specific parts of the study (e.g. sample size, questions, etc) you found to be biased, yet, you continued to just avoid giving a direct answer to "where is the bias in this study?" Your answers have blamed the messenger, blamed the funders, and now you are trying to divert attention to me to read the study and report the methods, data, and results for you. How many times have you posted that the study is biased??? and yet it is now clear that you did not even look at even the summary of the study to make this claim. I suppose you want me to believe that the research is biased but you are not. Go ahead and stick to your suite of pat answers for any study results that do not fit your point of view, especially those that are simple polls of public opinion. As you said you don't need to know the facts and can just "hang on your belief that a liberal polling organization funded by very liberal special interests produced a study that was skewed". Fair and balanced indeed. I suppose all the studies at http://www.worldpublicopinion.org are biased. Thanks for letting me know.

Paul, thank you for the answers, I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results but the research questions, methods, and results are still pretty straightforward whether it "was impossible to make a distinction between lack of knowledge and being misinformed". These researches seemed to have followed a standard scientific method. I totally get the peer review process and high level research but not all research is "experimental" in practice with much research being observational given the inability to control many variables and get at discrete functional relationships. Sociological and "human dimension" type research often relies on surveys and proven scientific and statistical methods to associate responses. Here is a link to one published version of the study http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Seminar%2011.2.pdf. I assume there is some peer review for this but I could be wrong.

Also, do a search on google scholar for "media bias". All kinds of great books and journal articles there like these:.http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/qjec.122.3.1187
http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355305775097542
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/499414
Lots of interesting stuff out there if we all had the time to look into it. Things are almost always more complicated than we initially beleive.

Hew
11-10-2008, 11:34 AM
Let's see. I am obtuse because, in direct response to you, I post:
No, you're obtuse because you keep ignoring my response(s) to your parrot-like squawking about needing to have the survey parsed.


...I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results...
Whew, we can all take a rest now. I was getting tired of watching you chase your tail.

Henry V
11-10-2008, 04:14 PM
No, you're obtuse because you keep ignoring my response(s) to your parrot-like squawking about needing to have the survey parsed.
Yes, this thread clearly shows I am the one here ignoring responses. You say "its biased". I ask and ask again "show me how?" and all you can some up with is "its the messenger and funders". Sorry it took me so long to realize that I should not expect a direct answer from you about why this study is biased beyond blaming the messenger and funders.

Hew
11-10-2008, 08:34 PM
Sorry it took me so long to realize that I should not expect a direct answer from you about why this study is biased beyond blaming the messenger and funders.
You've already changed your mind and are agreeing w/ me so I'm curious why you want me to keep arguing the same point ad naseum. If you're craving extra validation then I aim to please: yes, YES, a thousand times yes....you're right and I totally agree with you; the study probably has flaws. Glad to have you aboard. ;)


...I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results...

On a serious note, I appreciate your openmindedness and willingness to admit when you were wrong. That takes a big person. Kudos to you.

Paul Johnson
11-10-2008, 08:57 PM
Paul, thank you for the answers, I can see the study may have flaws or room for other interpretations of the results but the research questions, methods, and results are still pretty straightforward whether it "was impossible to make a distinction between lack of knowledge and being misinformed". These researches seemed to have followed a standard scientific method. I totally get the peer review process and high level research but not all research is "experimental" in practice with much research being observational given the inability to control many variables and get at discrete functional relationships. Sociological and "human dimension" type research often relies on surveys and proven scientific and statistical methods to associate responses. Here is a link to one published version of the study http://www.abdn.ac.uk/sociology/notes06/Level4/SO4530/Assigned-Readings/Seminar%2011.2.pdf. I assume there is some peer review for this but I could be wrong.

With regard to media bias, this study concluded that "The fact that viewers of some media outlets had far lower levels of misperceptions than did others (even when controlling for political attitudes) suggests that not all were making the maximal effort to counter the potential for misperception." This study is clearly not concluding that there is media bias. Given that there was a false nerve gas incident and that a few nerve gas artillery shells were found, it is quite possible that some people would think that WMD's were found. Furthermore, media such as NPR and PBS that were against the war from the start, would be more likely to dwell on the fact that the incident was a false alarm and that only a few old shells were found. Therefore, the people that used PBS or NPR as there primary source of information are more likely to be more informed about finding WMD's. Likewise, one can find valid reasons why the public might think that there was a link to al Queda or their perception that the "world" supported or opposed the war.

Is there bias in the media? The answer is clearly yes. Furthermore, the bias is on both sides. Media that were against the war would dwell on those facts that supported their belief that going to war was wrong. Media that supported the government’s decision to go to war may downplay those same facts.

The primary criticism that I have with the study is that it tries to lay the decisions to go to war on the president. In fact, the majority of Democrats and Republicans in the legislature supported that decision. Their support was based on information provided by a hamstrung CIA, which had been downsized and prevented from talking to the FBI by a previous administration.

If you remember, even the liberal candidate in the previous presidential election supported the war. The real misinformation campaign began when that candidate "changed" his mind about supporting the war in order to garner the anti-war vote. This is when the campaign to lay the blame on our current president and accuse him of lying to the public began.

The thing that I find deplorable is that a political party attempts to garner the anti-war vote because approximately one half the population of this country is anti-war. Roosevelt was elected on an anti-war campaign and if we had not been attack at Pearl Harbor, we would have watched Hitler conquer all of Europe and kill most of the Jews.

Was the decision to go to war in Iraq a good decision? Only time will tell.

Just for the fun of it, I did a statistical analysis of a soldier’s likelihood of dying in Iraq vs. dying because of drunk driving in the U.S. The real shocker was that a soldier is twice as likely to die in the U.S because of drunk driving as he or she was to die in Iraq as a result of combat. It’s a shame the anti-war folks do not direct their energy against drunk driving.

Henry V
11-11-2008, 10:39 AM
You've already changed your mind and are agreeing w/ me so I'm curious why you want me to keep arguing the same point ad naseum. If you're craving extra validation then I aim to please: yes, YES, a thousand times yes....you're right and I totally agree with you; the study probably has flaws. Glad to have you aboard. ;)

Potential flaws are potential flaws. You said the study was "biased". There is a difference.

Hew, next time just say something like "Even though I have not looked at the study the results do not agree with my point of view so the study must be biased by liberal researchers and funders and manipulation of the statistics. Don't keep asking me to provide any evidence that the study is biased I just know that it is."



On a serious note, I appreciate your openmindedness and willingness to admit when you were wrong. That takes a big person. Kudos to you.
Thanks. I appreciate your ability to avoid direct answers to basic questions. As I said, I still agree with the study's conclusions.

M Remington
11-12-2008, 04:24 PM
I think Fox viewers are less informed by choice. It is my impression that they view Fox as the only source of news. Consequently, CNN and MSNBC are rarely watched so both sides of the argument are not examined. But, the same could be said of watchers of MSNBC. I would say the most objective news coverage tends to be CNN.

subroc
11-12-2008, 05:01 PM
...I would say the most objective news coverage tends to be CNN.

And you would base that on what?

Are you sure you could be impartial when assessing objectivity when it comes to news coverage when you appear to be so left of center?

Are you sure you know where the center really is?

Could your personal objective lens actually be bias?

I on the other hand believe all news organizations other than Fox are left wing. That analysis is based on numerous studies that prove that most newsrooms are peopled by the left.

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf (http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf)

Fox is in the center.

The hard or far right isn’t represented at all.

Most on the left loathe the right. The news the left prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, left wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that Fox just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates Fox.

M Remington
11-12-2008, 05:37 PM
I would think the fact that I teach college-level government classes might give me a little credibility in this discussion. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that the MRC is a conservative organization.

I don't think there is any doubt that the press tends to be liberal. But, to say that Fox is in the center is totally incorrect. Fox tends to lean to the right, MSNBC to the left, and CNN to the center-left. Center-left is certainly more objective than right or left.

Finally, if Fox isn't biased, why is the preferred choice of so many right wingers?

Patrick Johndrow
11-12-2008, 05:48 PM
If a person uses only ONE source for news they are less informed than someone who use two or more sources.

I flip between CNN, FOX, ABC, etc.....all major new sources now days tend to lean one way or the other...to say other wise is dishonest.

subroc
11-12-2008, 06:34 PM
I would think the fact that I teach college-level government classes might give me a little credibility in this discussion. Your argument is further weakened by the fact that the MRC is a conservative organization.

I don't think there is any doubt that the press tends to be liberal. But, to say that Fox is in the center is totally incorrect. Fox tends to lean to the right, MSNBC to the left, and CNN to the center-left. Center-left is certainly more objective than right or left.

Finally, if Fox isn't biased, why is the preferred choice of so many right wingers?


As I said above:


Most on the left loathe the right. The news the left prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, left wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that Fox just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates Fox.

If anything being an academic actually calls your objectivity into question.

http://www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf (http://www.cwu.edu/~manwellerm/academic%20bias.pdf)

Paul Johnson
11-12-2008, 08:49 PM
Center-left is certainly more objective than right or left.?

Now here is a statement worthy of someone that teaches. Don't you think that it may be a bit bombastic? After a career at a major university, the one thing that is clear is that the vast majority of professors are anything but objective when it comes to politics.


Finally, if Fox isn't biased, why is the preferred choice of so many right wingers?

It is also the choice of a large number of independents which tend to be fiscal conservatives and social moderates. The fact that you use the term 'right wingers' clearly shows your bias!

Losthwy
11-13-2008, 11:47 AM
Fox is in the center.

The hard or far right isn’t represented at all.

Most on the left loathe the right. The fact that Fox just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates Fox.
Fox is in the center. Me thinks not.
Most on the left may loathe the right, don't know for sure never seen any polls about that, have you?
I guess the same could be said of the right loathing the left. How many times have we read CNN is the Communist News Network by those on the right on this forum?

Fox is to the right and who they choose to have on their shows reflect that. CNN and the other networks have more balance in that regard than Fox does. Which might explain Fox viewers are less informed.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1067

YardleyLabs
11-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Left or right are matters of perspective. Almost every right winger I have ever met believed he was a centrist with only socialists to the left. If polls concerning party membership and opinions on issues are accurate (I suspect that some are and some are not), the "center" of American politics lies to the left of the Republican party and to the right of the more liberal end of the Democratic party. Those identifying themselves as "conservatives" are very far to the right of the majority of the American public.

Personally, I believe that I am on the "right" since all of my opinions are correct. However, I'll admit that most people in the country and almost everyone on this forum would view me as being on the left.:) For my money, the distinction is irrelevant. It's simply the kind of label used by both sides to discredit others without having to address actual facts or issues.

Paul Johnson
11-13-2008, 01:16 PM
Fox is in the center. Me thinks not.
Most on the left may loathe the right, don't know for sure never seen any polls about that, have you?
I guess the same could be said of the right loathing the left.

While many on the 'right' do not like liberal ideas, it the liberals that resort to using terms such as imbicile and moron to describe people they disagree with.


Fox is to the right and who they choose to have on their shows reflect that.

Using your logic, O'Reilly's interview of Obama makes FOX News 'right' of center!

If you bothered to watch FOX News, you would have noted that their commentators routinely have guests and 'FOX News contributors' from both sides of the political spectrum.


Which might explain Fox viewers are less informed.

Are they "less informed" about one thing, two things, or everything? Where are your facts? Please do not spout another study that asks a question about a single subject and then draws a conclusion about all subjects. These types of studies are just BS.

The fact is: People that depend on television and radio (20 second sound bites) for their source of information are far less informed then people that use the print media.

BTW Maybe you would like to explain what the terms left and right mean. What is the difference between Democrates and Republicans? What is the difference between liberal and conservative political phlisophy? Are there conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans?

Paul Johnson
11-13-2008, 01:19 PM
Left or right are matters of perspective. Almost every right winger I have ever met believed he was a centrist with only socialists to the left. If polls concerning party membership and opinions on issues are accurate (I suspect that some are and some are not), the "center" of American politics lies to the left of the Republican party and to the right of the more liberal end of the Democratic party. Those identifying themselves as "conservatives" are very far to the right of the majority of the American public.

Personally, I believe that I am on the "right" since all of my opinions are correct. However, I'll admit that most people in the country and almost everyone on this forum would view me as being on the left.:) For my money, the distinction is irrelevant. It's simply the kind of label used by both sides to discredit others without having to address actual facts or issues.

Maybe you would like to explain to us what the terms left and right mean. What is the difference between Democrates and Republicans? What is the difference between liberal and conservative political phlisophy? Are there conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans?

YardleyLabs
11-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Maybe you would like to explain to us what the terms left and right mean. What is the difference between Democrates and Republicans? What is the difference between liberal and conservative political phlisophy? Are there conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans?

Having already said that I consider the left/right dichotomy to be irrelevant, I'll leave to others to try to give it meaning. As I used the words conservative and liberal, I was referring to how people describe themselves. I describe myself as liberal. However, many others who describe themselves as liberal find my ownership of guns and involvement in blood sports incomprehensible. I don't see where the labels further any discussion of how our country should live and hopefully flourish within the world. From my perspective, it's hard to beat the "Golden Rule" as a foundation for personal morality, political philosophy, international relations, and even environmental balance. But then I've always been a simple minded liberal.:)

greg ye
11-13-2008, 02:55 PM
I think Fox viewers are less informed by choice. It is my impression that they view Fox as the only source of news. Consequently, CNN and MSNBC are rarely watched so both sides of the argument are not examined.

Could be guilty as charged, but Christ, Overbite and Maddog give me a headache when I'm surfing from FOX ads. Try to watch, but they're just plain sick. Thank goodness for the Weather Channel.

Joe S.
11-13-2008, 03:06 PM
If a person uses only ONE source for news they are less informed than someone who use two or more sources.

I flip between CNN, FOX, ABC, etc.....all major new sources now days tend to lean one way or the other...to say other wise is dishonest.

Nicely done, Patrick!

I would only add that most on the right loathe the left. The news the right prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, right wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that MSNBC just doesn’t hate the left and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the right hates MSNBC.

Thanks For Letting Me Clear That Up Regards,

Joe S.

Joe S.
11-13-2008, 03:08 PM
While many on the 'right' do not like liberal ideas, it the liberals that resort to using terms such as imbicile and moron to describe people they disagree with.

Ummm...have you read ANY of the posts by Bob G.? I mean, any at all? Even just one?

;-) Regards,

Joe S.

greg ye
11-13-2008, 03:28 PM
The fact that MSNBC just doesn’t hate the left and gives them a fair hearingJoe S.

Serious?!???!! Fair!!??! OMG

Joe S.
11-13-2008, 04:43 PM
Serious?!???!! Fair!!??! OMG

Read what Subron wrote, then read what I wrote, then find a definition for ironic humor, it's a killer. :p:cool:;-)

Ironically Humorous Regards,

Joe S.

Patrick Johndrow
11-13-2008, 05:55 PM
Nicely done, Patrick!

I would only add that most on the right loathe the left. The news the right prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, right wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that MSNBC just doesn’t hate the left and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the right hates MSNBC.

Thanks For Letting Me Clear That Up Regards,

Joe S.

I would only add that most on the left loathe the right. The news the left prefers must be void of any idea that doesn’t agree with their narrow, left wing ideological viewpoint. The fact that FOX just doesn’t hate the right and gives them a fair hearing is the reason the left hates FOX.


Fair And Balanced Regards ;)

subroc
11-13-2008, 06:36 PM
The question is, does MSNBC actually give the right a fair hearing?

Does Fox give the left a fair hearing?

Paul Johnson
11-13-2008, 06:52 PM
Ummm...have you read ANY of the posts by Bob G.? I mean, any at all? Even just one?

;-) Regards,

Joe S.

Hmm! I must have missed the post by Bob G. in this thread that used any disparaging remarks to describe liberals. Must have been posted using invisible text.

Marvin S
11-13-2008, 09:39 PM
Read what Subron wrote, then read what I wrote, then find a definition for ironic humor, it's a killer. :p:cool:;-)

Ironically Humorous Regards,

Joe S.

Who's Subron? Your accuracy is suffering, Joe.


Ummm...have you read ANY of the posts by Bob G.? I mean, any at all? Even just one?

;-) Regards,

Joe S.


Hmm! I must have missed the post by Bob G. in this thread that used any disparaging remarks to describe liberals. Must have been posted using invisible text.

Nice Shot, Paul - We'll give you a 3 (as in BB) on that.

Invisible text regards!!

Joe S.
11-14-2008, 06:25 AM
Hmm! I must have missed the post by Bob G. in this thread that used any disparaging remarks to describe liberals. Must have been posted using invisible text.

You haven't been around here long, have you?

All It Takes Is Research Regards,

Joe S.

subroc
11-19-2008, 05:19 AM
Here is a prety good clip

http://www.howobamagotelected.com/ (http://www.howobamagotelected.com/)

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641 (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641)

cotts135
11-19-2008, 06:14 AM
Here is a prety good clip



http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641 (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1641)

Let's go through this survey a little closer.

1.57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) That would happen no matter what group you were polling

2.81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) Biden was later cleared of those charges.

3.82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) Simply false
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806020007

4.88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)Not true http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/a-final-campaign-focus-coal-and-co2/

5.56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).Again not true. .http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/deceptions-di-1.html

For the questions concerning Sarah Palin

1.And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
She did say though that you could see Russia from Alaska. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2

The rest of the questions are facts.

So if I am reading this correctly it seams that the right is complaining that the media didn't broadcast these falsehoods about Obama/Biden loud enough.

subroc
11-19-2008, 06:20 AM
Let's go through this survey a little closer.

1.57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing) That would happen no matter what group you were polling

2.81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing) Biden was later cleared of those charges.

3.82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing) Simply false
http://mediamatters.org/items/200806020007

4.88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)Not true http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/03/a-final-campaign-focus-coal-and-co2/

5.56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).Again not true. .http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2008/10/deceptions-di-1.html

For the questions concerning Sarah Palin

1.And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!
She did say though that you could see Russia from Alaska. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5782924&page=2

The rest of the questions are facts.

So if I am reading this correctly it seams that the right is complaining that the media didn't broadcast these falsehoods about Obama/Biden loud enough.


The point was about being informed.

Are they informed?

Or are you suggesting scattershot is the way an informed populace is measured?

I will say you have a penchant for missing the point.

Here is a counter to your assertion about the coal industry. this youtube clip is a 4 min segment of your posted clip.

He wants to install a cap and trade system that in and of itself will bankrupt the coal industry (his words) by making it impossible with current technology.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwBbl6RoIs)

cotts135
11-19-2008, 06:57 AM
The point was about being informed.

Are they informed?

Your right, I agree with you a 100%, is the electorate informed was the point of the article. My point is why should you know about things that are not true. If you are going to ask people about something I think it is important that whatever you ask them about is fact.
I think the Right will now promote this poll as showing that the left didn't know all the facts. The problem is these are not facts and that was what I was trying to show.

subroc
11-19-2008, 07:26 AM
I believe Biden admitted his plagiarism. He also left a presidential campaign because of it. I would assert it is true.

txbadger
11-19-2008, 07:57 AM
"Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or a politics of hope?"

Nice BHO talking point ... not to hijack the thread but do you consider appointing HC to Sec of St, insider as Chief of staff and now an AG that supported pardoning of known criminal as NOT good ol boy politics & what iota of hope?